Comment to 'Bad seo una'

Comment to Bad seo una

· Andrey Yasko

· 2019-07-11T10:59:40+0000
We discussed this at length before and settled w this idea - https://github.com/unaio/una/issues/1091
We do need friendlier URLs, but not “vanity” URLs - they are an insignificant SEO factor for modern search engines, but they create a lot of UX hurdles - how do you deal with typos in edited titles, changing URLs or not? How do we deal with non Latin symbols that are nor supported in Http Protocol spec? URLs are not meant to carry content and therefore must be used as relevancy signal. They used to be, though and some seo “experts” still peddle that idea. Consider the fact that naturally such seo-friendly URLs would only be used in attempt to game the rankings - if anything they may show that the content is being artific presented as more relevant.
- · Baloo
  
  · In reply to
  
  Andrey Yasko
  
  · 2019-07-11T11:45:00+0000
  And you did well. It is a pleasure to be able to correct the mistakes in the titles, or simply modify them because they are sometimes badly adapted to the written article. My first site under Dolphin took 8 years to be at the top of the ranking, it took only 8 months to the second under UNA to catch the first and come to position just behind and this on the keywords that are important to me , even if I search in a private window. Both sites have the same theme, on which there is a lot of competition, so SEO works really well, I am very satisfied about it. Very sincerely.
- · Andrey Yasko
  
  · In reply to
  
  Baloo
  
  · 2019-07-11T11:57:44+0000
  Thank you! What I believe does matter in terms of SEO is the speed and mobile-viewport optimisation. We recently received a notice from Google Console saying that they've switched mobile-only crawling for UNA.IO, citing that the site is responsive and is most likely to be used via mobiles, hence it makes sense to assess it using mobile crawler. Gotta be mindful of which blocks we turn off for mobile viewports (though it's still unclear if mobile crawler identifies itself as browser with mobile-size viewport), be vigilant about tap targets, do better with image optimisation (google is sensitive to suboptimal use of mobile data), etc.
  It looks like Google AMP initiative didn't get enough traction, thankfully. I believe it was a bad thing for publishers and site-operators anyhow, but we'll be watching it to make sure nobody is missing out on rankings boost.